again, agree, the racial implications and inequity of delaying the reval barely made a blip on the city's consciousness as is its failure to act on the Croson study and remedy the disparity in the city's contract and procurement process.

however, gone are the old days of board of education candidates winning elections with 2,000 votes give or take.

this past November, Marilyn Roman had 26k votes and all the winners were over 20k votes. The previous year, Amy DeGise has 19k, and in 2016, Angel Valentin and Suhan Thomas with 16k.

We'll see if anything changes as we get closer to paying 50% of our school's budget. Doubt anything until the next recession.

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:Quote:

brewster wrote:Quote:

DanL wrote:while I believe that this decision is not in the best interest of the education system and conflicts of interest come with a heavy cost, however, Jersey City teachers are NOT among the highest paid in the state. They make more than 88%, not 98% of districts. Median salary is $75,760, ranked 80th in districts in NJ, 3rd in Hudson behind, Hoboken and Harrison.

Ah, I misremembered, it's actually >93% of, as I said, equivalent districts. But since when is more than even 88% "NOT among the highest paid in the state."???

bodhipooh wrote: it bears repeating that JC residents have shown incredible apathy to these issues because they are shielded from the spiraling school costs as a result of our budget being mostly shouldered by the state. If for every $1 increase we only pay 16 cents, people just don't have enough of an incentive (or don't feel enough pain) to complain and demand accountability.

This actually bears a striking resemblance to how insured Americans have been indifferent to skyrocketing healthcare costs. I still don't fathom how the state returned control when we're so obviously spending out of control, and how they didn't rein it in over the >25 years they had control.

You are SO right in drawing that analogy with healthcare: for those of us who are covered by an employer plan, healthcare costs have always been an abstract subject. About five years ago, my company switched from paying 95% of the monthly cost of employee's health insurance to 80%, which of course spurred a lot of people to examine what was being paid for and what was offered or included. And, since that first change, a small (but, very vocal) group insists on negotiating of new rates, even if it entails switching plans. If the company ever switches to paying just 50%, I am SURE that most people would be VERY invested in how the plans are negotiated and what is covered or offered.

The irony is that if you ask most people on the street, they would tell you that our taxes are too high. When the reval was completed, a sizable portion of DTJC was up in arms about the new taxes, and there was no reasoning with those people. They insist they are being unfairly singled out. When it is pointed out to them that school taxes are too low and will inevitably go up in the next few years, people absolutely, positively lose their $hit and go on tirades about the unfairness of it all, this despite being told that we are only paying 16% of our budget, while other NJ residents are paying the rest. Tripling the local school tax is about the fairest thing that could happen, but people would be up in arms. The thing is... sooner or later, it will have to happen.

DanL wrote:while I believe that this decision is not in the best interest of the education system and conflicts of interest come with a heavy cost, however, Jersey City teachers are NOT among the highest paid in the state. They make more than 88%, not 98% of districts. Median salary is $75,760, ranked 80th in districts in NJ, 3rd in Hudson behind, Hoboken and Harrison.

Ah, I misremembered, it's actually >93% of, as I said, equivalent districts. But since when is more than even 88% "NOT among the highest paid in the state."???

bodhipooh wrote: it bears repeating that JC residents have shown incredible apathy to these issues because they are shielded from the spiraling school costs as a result of our budget being mostly shouldered by the state. If for every $1 increase we only pay 16 cents, people just don't have enough of an incentive (or don't feel enough pain) to complain and demand accountability.

This actually bears a striking resemblance to how insured Americans have been indifferent to skyrocketing healthcare costs. I still don't fathom how the state returned control when we're so obviously spending out of control, and how they didn't rein it in over the >25 years they had control.

You are SO right in drawing that analogy with healthcare: for those of us who are covered by an employer plan, healthcare costs have always been an abstract subject. About five years ago, my company switched from paying 95% of the monthly cost of employee's health insurance to 80%, which of course spurred a lot of people to examine what was being paid for and what was offered or included. And, since that first change, a small (but, very vocal) group insists on negotiating of new rates, even if it entails switching plans. If the company ever switches to paying just 50%, I am SURE that most people would be VERY invested in how the plans are negotiated and what is covered or offered.

The irony is that if you ask most people on the street, they would tell you that our taxes are too high. When the reval was completed, a sizable portion of DTJC was up in arms about the new taxes, and there was no reasoning with those people. They insist they are being unfairly singled out. When it is pointed out to them that school taxes are too low and will inevitably go up in the next few years, people absolutely, positively lose their $hit and go on tirades about the unfairness of it all, this despite being told that we are only paying 16% of our budget, while other NJ residents are paying the rest. Tripling the local school tax is about the fairest thing that could happen, but people would be up in arms. The thing is... sooner or later, it will have to happen.

DanL wrote:while I believe that this decision is not in the best interest of the education system and conflicts of interest come with a heavy cost, however, Jersey City teachers are NOT among the highest paid in the state. They make more than 88%, not 98% of districts. Median salary is $75,760, ranked 80th in districts in NJ, 3rd in Hudson behind, Hoboken and Harrison.

Ah, I misremembered, it's actually >93% of, as I said, equivalent districts. But since when is more than even 88% "NOT among the highest paid in the state."???

bodhipooh wrote: it bears repeating that JC residents have shown incredible apathy to these issues because they are shielded from the spiraling school costs as a result of our budget being mostly shouldered by the state. If for every $1 increase we only pay 16 cents, people just don't have enough of an incentive (or don't feel enough pain) to complain and demand accountability.

This actually bears a striking resemblance to how insured Americans have been indifferent to skyrocketing healthcare costs. I still don't fathom how the state returned control when we're so obviously spending out of control, and how they didn't rein it in over the >25 years they had control.

Jersey City school board votes to allow members with conflicts of interest to vote on teachers union pact

JERSEY CITY — The school board voted Thursday to allow its members who were supported by the local teachers union to vote on the new union contract, which could be finalized later this year.

The approved measure is known as the doctrine of necessity, which is invoked when a quorum of the board has conflicts of interest that prevent it from voting on a specific matter. Absent Thursday’s action, only four board members would be able to vote on the teachers union contract because the other five have conflicts. The contract expires in June.

Thursday’s measure was approved with little discussion by a 7-1 vote, with Matt Schapiro voting no. He is one of the non-conflicted members.

The foxes are voting on who should be allowed in the henhouse. You can't make this shit up. We pay our teachers more than 98% of equivalent NJ districts. Why is that?

Why is that? Well, I think this has been explained before: in addition to the power of entrenched interests (and the obvious malfeasance of the BOE "taking care of their own") it bears repeating that JC residents have shown incredible apathy to these issues because they are shielded from the spiraling school costs as a result of our budget being mostly shouldered by the state. If for every $1 increase we only pay 16 cents, people just don't have enough of an incentive (or don't feel enough pain) to complain and demand accountability.

Of course, now that the reval was completed and the rate came out so low, the party is slowly grinding to a halt. In very short time, we will likely see a doubling of our school taxes, which will translate into a 25% increase of our property taxes. That should get people's attention. And, that would only amount to JC residents shouldering 33% of the local BOE budget. If we were asked/forced to pay half of our BOE budget, we could be staring at a tripling of our school taxes, which would equal a 50% bump in property taxes. Imagine the bitching and moaning then.

while I believe that this decision is not in the best interest of the education system and conflicts of interest come with a heavy cost, however, Jersey City teachers are NOT among the highest paid in the state. They make more than 88%, not 98% of districts. Median salary is $75,760, ranked 80th in districts in NJ, 3rd in Hudson behind, Hoboken and Harrison.

Jersey City school board votes to allow members with conflicts of interest to vote on teachers union pact

JERSEY CITY — The school board voted Thursday to allow its members who were supported by the local teachers union to vote on the new union contract, which could be finalized later this year.

The approved measure is known as the doctrine of necessity, which is invoked when a quorum of the board has conflicts of interest that prevent it from voting on a specific matter. Absent Thursday’s action, only four board members would be able to vote on the teachers union contract because the other five have conflicts. The contract expires in June.

Thursday’s measure was approved with little discussion by a 7-1 vote, with Matt Schapiro voting no. He is one of the non-conflicted members.

Jersey City school board votes to allow members with conflicts of interest to vote on teachers union pact

JERSEY CITY — The school board voted Thursday to allow its members who were supported by the local teachers union to vote on the new union contract, which could be finalized later this year.

The approved measure is known as the doctrine of necessity, which is invoked when a quorum of the board has conflicts of interest that prevent it from voting on a specific matter. Absent Thursday’s action, only four board members would be able to vote on the teachers union contract because the other five have conflicts. The contract expires in June.

Thursday’s measure was approved with little discussion by a 7-1 vote, with Matt Schapiro voting no. He is one of the non-conflicted members.

Jersey City school board votes to allow members with conflicts of interest to vote on teachers union pact

JERSEY CITY — The school board voted Thursday to allow its members who were supported by the local teachers union to vote on the new union contract, which could be finalized later this year.

The approved measure is known as the doctrine of necessity, which is invoked when a quorum of the board has conflicts of interest that prevent it from voting on a specific matter. Absent Thursday’s action, only four board members would be able to vote on the teachers union contract because the other five have conflicts. The contract expires in June.

Thursday’s measure was approved with little discussion by a 7-1 vote, with Matt Schapiro voting no. He is one of the non-conflicted members.